Architect service tax requires statutory registration; debatable interpretation and no suppression barred extended limitation.

Service tax liability under architect service required the provider to be a person whose name was entered in the statutory register of architects under the Architects Act, 1972; the word "includes" did not remove that registration . A proprietary concern was treated as the same entity as its proprietor, and because the appellant was neither an architect nor registered, the demand on merits was not sustainable. The demand was also time-barred because it was raised beyond the normal period on a debatable interpretation of the charging definition, without suppression of facts or mala fide intent, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the services rendered by the appellant fell within architect service so as to attract service tax under the Finance Act, 1994; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the services rendered by the appellant fell within architect service so as to attract service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The definition of architect service required service by a person whose name was entered in the register of architects maintained under the Architects Act, 1972. The expression "includes" in the definition did not dilute that basic condition. A commercial concern could also fall within the definition only if the statutory requirement of registration was satisfied. The appellant was neither an architect nor registered under the Architects Act, and a proprietary concern is to be treated as the same entity as its proprietor.

Conclusion: The appellant did not fall within the definition of architect for service tax purposes, and the demand on merits was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The demand was raised beyond the normal period. The dispute involved a complex and debatable interpretation of the charging definition, and the original adjudicating authority had also accepted the appellant's case. In such circumstances, suppression of facts or mala fide intent could not be attributed so as to justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and could not be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appellant was granted relief, with the original adjudication restored.

Ratio Decidendi: For service tax liability under architect service, registration in the statutory register is an essential condition, and where the dispute turns on a debatable interpretation without suppression, the extended limitation period cannot be invoked.

---